Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (9777)	9/29/2003 1:57:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

Novak should have never published the story. But he is a well known "rat." If recent history is any guide, federal investigators are unlikely to discover who the leakers are. If they don't, the call for a Congressional investigation will be unstoppable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Media Review Conduct After Leak CIA Inquiry Leads to Questions About What Should Be Published By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A04 When syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported on July 14 that "two senior administration officials" had told him that the wife of a prominent White House critic did undercover work for the CIA, it barely caused a ripple. Former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV talked about the leak in interviews and at the National Press Club soon after, telling Newsday the message was "that if you talk, we'll take your family and drag them through the mud." Nation writer David Corn called the leak a "thuggish act," and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called it a "criminal act." After Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called for an investigation, the New York Times, Washington Post and Buffalo News ran inside-the-paper stories. But it was not until this weekend's reports that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to examine the matter that the story hit the front page of The Washington Post and the Sunday talk shows, sparking questions not just about White House motives but about media conduct. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said Novak was in "dangerous territory. . . . Journalists should apply a civil disobedience test: Does the public good outweigh the wrong that you're doing? In a case where you are risking someone's life, potentially, or putting someone in danger, you have to decide what is the public good you are accomplishing. Because you have the freedom to publish doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do." Novak, a veteran conservative whose column appears in more than 300 papers, is well connected in the administration, although he opposed the war in Iraq. He declined yesterday to discuss the issue in detail, saying: "I made the judgment it was newsworthy. I think the story has to stand for itself. It's 100 percent accurate. I'm not going to get into why I wrote something." Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post, one of the papers that published the July 14 column, said that "in retrospect, I wish I had asked more questions. If I had, given that his column appears in a lot of places, I'm not sure I would have done anything differently. But I wish we had thought about it harder. Alarm bells didn't go off. . . . We have a policy of trying not to publish anything that would endanger anybody." But Steve Huntley, editorial page editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, Novak's home paper, said: "I trust his judgment and accuracy unquestionably, and his ethics as well. . . . This is the sort of thing you're always faced with when a source tells you something a source should not be telling you. Do you become a second gatekeeper? Our business is to report news, not to slam the door on it." News organizations often face the dilemma of whether to publish a politically juicy story that might jeopardize someone in a sensitive government position. These judgment calls often involve national security secrets -- troop movements, terrorism investigations, classified military documents -- or police matters, as during the Washington sniper investigation. Journalists sometimes withhold or delay publishing such information at the request of authorities. It is a violation of law for officials to intentionally disclose the identity of a covert operative. The column by Novak came eight days after Wilson wrote a July 6 New York Times op-ed piece challenging President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Also on July 6, Wilson, who had gone to Niger to investigate at the CIA's request, was quoted by The Washington Post as saying the administration was "misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war." Bush has since backed off the uranium claim. A senior administration official told The Post on Saturday that two top government officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was "leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters." Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday. NBC's Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert, and ABC's bureau chief, Robin Sproul, said yesterday they could not discuss any matter involving confidential sources. But John Roberts, a CBS White House correspondent, said that to his knowledge, no administration official had contacted anyone at the network about Wilson. If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative." The Wilson case has parallels in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has plummeted in popularity after his aides leaked the name of a BBC source, government scientist David Kelley, who had questioned Blair's evidence on Iraqi weapons. Kelley committed suicide after his name was made public. If recent history is any guide, federal investigators are unlikely to discover who the leakers are. In 1999, a federal appeals court ruled that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and his staff did not have to face contempt proceedings for allegedly leaking damaging information about President Bill Clinton because no grand jury secrets were disclosed. The next year, a former Starr spokesman, Charles G. Bakaly III, was acquitted of making false statements about his role in providing information to the New York Times. In 1992, Senate investigators said they could not determine who leaked confidential information to National Public Radio and Newsday about Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation. In 1989, then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh launched an unsuccessful $224,000 investigation of a leak to CBS of an inquiry into then-Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.). washingtonpost.com

To: D. Long who wrote (9777)	10/7/2003 9:51:04 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

Wireless Carriers Try to Get the 411 Reception to Cell-Phone Directory May Be Spotty By Griff Witte Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 7, 2003; Page E01 411. Online directories. The plain old phone book. There are lots of ways to find out someone's number if that person's phone happens to be tied to a traditional land line. But if you need to reach someone on a cell phone and you've misplaced the digits, you're out of luck. Starting next year, that may change. In an initiative that is testing the balance between convenience and privacy, the nation's major wireless carriers are teaming up to put together a directory of wireless phone numbers that would allow customers to call 411 and connect to mobile phones, not just phones that plug into a wall. For the carriers, it's a chance to make people more comfortable "cutting the cord" -- using wireless phones as their primary phones, content in the knowledge that people who need to reach them can. It's also an opportunity for the cellular companies to tap into what could be a multibillion-dollar listing business. But at the same time, the carriers risk alienating their customers, many of whom worry that a central database of cell-phone numbers has the potential to spoil their one oasis from spam, junk mail and telemarketers. "It's the last bastion of privacy, the cell phone," said Frank Kenney, a 57-year-old D.C. resident who uses his wireless phone only for emergencies and would like to keep it that way. Kenney said he fears that a database would allow people he doesn't know to bother him on his cell phone. "I'd resent that, just like I resent it with the regular phones," he said. Kenney is not the only one who's concerned. Several members of Congress have recently raised questions about exactly how consumers would be protected if a wireless directory assistance program were initiated. "I don't want my phone number put on a list somewhere for the world to see," said Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-Pa.), who is gathering support for hearings on the matter. "Privacy of cell phones is extremely important." The trade group spearheading the effort, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, maintains that no directory assistance program will be launched without multiple safeguards to ensure that the nation's 150 million wireless customers aren't deluged with unwanted calls. "The industry has been protective of consumers' privacy. And we do that because it's good for business," said Travis Larson, spokesman for the CTIA. "If customers get calls they don't want, they'll probably turn off their phones." In a letter to Pitts and four other members of Congress in August, CTIA president and chief executive Thomas E. Wheeler wrote that concerns that telemarketers will abuse the wireless-number database are "groundless." "The privacy and integrity of the master database is of great importance to wireless carriers," he wrote. It's not hard to understand why. A cell phone that's plagued by unwanted calls isn't a product that consumers are likely to keep. "If you started to have unsolicited commercial calls on cell phones, that disruption would be even more of a constant problem than on your land line because it's always with you," said Susan Grant, vice president for public policy at the National Consumers League. In addition, with cell phones, the recipient of a call shares the burden of paying along with the caller, she said. To be sure the wireless 411 program doesn't backfire, the carriers are contemplating a variety of mechanisms to keep customers in control of who can reach them. For instance, instead of giving out numbers, operators might instead connect the call directly. Another way to protect customers might be to send them a text message when someone is trying to contact them through directory assistance, at which point they could decide whether to accept the call, reject it or send it to voice mail. Finally, customers will be given the option to not be listed in the database. The carriers are still deciding if they should assume customers want to be part of the database unless they indicate otherwise or if customers should have to actively volunteer to be listed. In the former case, customers might find themselves on the list without knowing they've consented. In the latter, not enough might sign up to make the service useful. Another unresolved issue is whether customers who choose to remain unlisted will have to pay to do so, as is the case with land-line phones. Larson said that decision will be left up to the individual carriers. Wireless directory assistance should be available next year, Larson said. Before that can happen, however, all the major carriers have to agree on how the service will work, which hasn't been easy given the competition in the industry. "There has been some significant friction and dissension," said Kathleen Pierz, an analyst with the Pierz Group, a research and consulting firm that specializes in directory assistance. But she said wireless 411 could be a windfall for all the carriers, if they do it right. A survey conducted by the San Francisco-based Zelos Group Inc. consulting firm showed that allowing customers to access cell-phone numbers through 411 could bring the wireless industry $3 billion a year through user fees and the additional minutes that callers would spend on the network. That's true despite the fact that consumer interest in the service is tepid at best. For a separate report, Zelos surveyed more than 1,200 mobile phone users, and approximately half said keeping their numbers unlisted was their top choice. Fewer than 10 percent said they wanted to see their cell numbers listed in the same way as their business or residential numbers. A larger percentage approved of listing if they could control who had access to the numbers. The survey showed one major bright spot for the industry: "If you do this right, there's high interest among younger users," said Mark Plakias, a Zelos Group senior analyst. Juanita Cooksey, 18, of Woodbridge is a case in point. She welcomes wireless 411 and would use it to get in touch with friends when she knows their home numbers but not their mobile numbers. "We need that," she said. Cooksey said the extra convenience the service would bring outweighs any irritation from getting an unwanted call every now and then: "If it's somebody I don't know, I'd just say, 'You've got the wrong number.' " © 2003 The Washington Post Company